POPLA Decisions

Artegal

:j
An Indigo penalty ticket was received after the ticket machine in a station car park was not working. This was in November 2018, shortly after ITAL took on adjudicating second appeals for Indigo.

ITAL demonstrated a total lack of professionalism, impartiality and transparency throughout. They initially refused the appeal, despite not refuting my appeal points and even going so far as to appear to fill in gaps in indigo’s evidence pack. I complained to ITAL’s director of corporate affairs who gave spurious reasons why the decision was correct but by my third complaint agreed the penalty ticket (which at one point she called a penalty fare!) had been wrongly issued.

If you’re interested you can read the whole saga on Pepipoo. I can’t add the url here but it’s topic 124782 Station ticket machine not working
:j

Umkomaas

If you’re interested you can read the whole saga on Pepipoo. I can’t add the url here but it’s topic 124782 Station ticket machine not working

Here ya go 'Arry - hehe!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=124782

Eddy.Geddy12

So I really do not know if I should be writing this here or not, but hopefully someone will let me know.

Long story short got a ticket from NCP, appealed through them and POPLA but both rejected my appeal. Left it and now got a letter from Trace Debt Recovery asking for £160.

I would of followed the advice on the newbie FAQ page, but on that thread it said NOT TO CONTECT THE DEBT COLLECTOR. But I did call the debt collector to ask why I wasn't informed in writing from NCP that my appeal was rejected by POPLA and that the amount is still outstanding.

I was planning on sending a letter saying I will not be paying as per another forum on this site.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Coupon-mad

Welcome - but this thread is for POPLA DECISIONS to be reported only, and so you need to post that in a new thread instead, so you get bespoke advice for your case.

Did TRACE get involved as there's a new address?

DON'T REPLY HERE! New thread please.

Monyl

Thank you for all your help on this platform. The whole parking charge notice entity is more of a nightmare and very stressful in trying to understand it more than the local authorities parking tickets. However glad to share that I won my appeal at POPLA on 4 October 2018. Apologies for posting it here late as I thought I had already done so at the time. The decision is below:

Decision
Successful


Assessor Name
Michael Byrne

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant did not display a valid parking permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they have a parking space for their premises as part of an Assured Tenancy under the Housing Act 1985. the appellant states that their new landlord, Clarion, wrote to all tenants on 15 January 2018 and to confirm that their previous landlord, Circle 33, had ceased to exist.

The appellant states that the new landlord has issued the PCN in the name of Circle 33, who no longer exist. The appellant states that their Assured Tenancy does not mention that they are required to display a parking permit, which the operator cannot override. The appellant states that the operator has provided no evidence to confirm that they have landowner authority to issue the PCN. The appellant states that they are dyslexic and found the PCN difficult to read and understand. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided an extract from their Tenancy Agreement, their PCN, payments that they have made to their landlord to park and a letter from their new landlord, Clarion.

Assessor supporting rational for decision.
In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. The appellant’s case is that they have a parking space for their premises as part of an Assured Tenancy under the Housing Act 1985. the appellant states that their new landlord, Clarion, wrote to all tenants on 15 January 2018 and to confirm that their previous landlord, Circle 33, had ceased to exist.

The appellant states that the new landlord has issued the PCN in the name of Circle 33, who no longer
exist. The appellant states that their Assured Tenancy does not mention that they are required to display a parking permit, which the operator cannot override.

The appellant states that the operator has provided no evidence to confirm that they have landowner authority to issue the PCN. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent)”. Section 7.3 continues: “7.3 The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement”.

In order to prove that it has the necessary landowner authority to issue the PCN, I would expect the operator to provide written landowner authority or a valid witness statement to rebut the appellant claims. However, the operator has only provided a document that confirms that the landowner has extended a contract. I cannot determine from the extension what the operator’s responsibilities are and whether it has authority to issue PCN’s. The appellant has raised other grounds of appeal. However, I do not consider it necessary to consider these, as I have already allowed the appeal on the above basis.

Accordingly, I do not conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge and will allow the appeal.

Coupon-mad

Nice result, thanks for posting it here.

MistyZ

Rather sounds as if assessor Michael Byrne has a brain.

Great result! Stressful process for sure but I hope that when the dust settles you'll get a boost from having fought this so well & so successfully.

Umkomaas

Thank you @Monyl for posting, and for formatting it so well to make it easily readable.

If you’re still up for fighting the imposition of a PPC on the estate, why not copy the POPLA decision, write a short preamble of your experience, print off and post a copy through all residents’ letterboxes, so they are aware of the scam and the fact that they can beat this outfit. The PPC will soon be on their way!

uio123

Decision: Allowed

Assessor: Richard Beaden

Date: 5th April 2019

Reported:https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5952846/parkingeye-central-station-warrington&highlight=uio123#topofpage

Successful Grounds: The operator has failed to provide any evidence to POPLA which shows that it has a valid contract in place to manage this site.

PPC: Parking Eye



Decision
Successful



Assessor Name
Richard Beaden



Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to make an appropriate tariff payment.




Assessor summary of your case
The appellant disputes that the Notice to Keeper meets the requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). They advise that the operator has failed to show that who it is pursing is liable for the charge. The appellant dispute that eh operator has a valid contract with the landowner to enable it to pursue charges. The appellant believes that the operator has breached the British Parking Association (BPA) in relation to ANPR usage. They dispute that the signage at the site is prominent and clear. The appellant disputes that the operator has planning permission for its ANPR cameras or that it has advertising planning consent. They advise that the operator has not shown how long the vehicle was parked. The appellant has provided a copy of the PCN, a copy of the final response from the operator and a letter detailing their appeal.




Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed around the car park. These signs show the following terms and conditions, “Up to 2 hours £1.00, At the payment machine at any time before exiting the car park - your full, correct vehicle registration will be required, Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to make an appropriate tariff payment. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images the operator has provided show that the vehicle entered the car park on 14 September 2018 at 18:50 and left at 19:39. A total stay of 20 minutes. The operator has also provided a copy of a system printout, which shows if the vehicle was registered at that car park on the day in question, along with any payments made. The printout shows that the vehicle was not registered with a payment.

• The appellant disputes that the Notice to Keeper meets the requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). They advise that the operator has failed to show that who it is pursing is liable for the charge.
• The appellant disputes that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner to enable it to pursue charges.
• The appellant believes that the operator has breached the British Parking Association (BPA) in relation to ANPR usage. They dispute that the signage at the site is prominent and clear.
• The appellant disputes that the operator has planning permission for its ANPR cameras or that it has advertising planning consent. They advise that the operator has not shown how long the vehicle was parked.
• The appellant does not believe that the operator has the landowner’s permission to manage the site and is therefore unable to form a contract.

The operator has failed to provide any evidence to POPLA which shows that it has a valid contract in place to manage this site. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any further grounds of appeal.

Coupon-mad

Rank amateurs!